RPGWatch Feature: Shadowrun Returns Review

September 22nd, 2013, 17:25

So, I played about 10 hours of this after being distracted with some other stuff when it came out.

I had a blast to be honest, it wasn't arcadey and it wasn't a min max game, but it oozed personality. I thought it did a good job in displaying what the shadowrun universe is, I enjoyed the conversations with characters etc.

What I would like to see in a sequel(since I don't see a whole lot of difference in the expansion)

- More branching missions, this game would have benefited a lot in more time adding more branches with multiple endings - note I haven't finished the game yet.

- Saving anywhere would be nice, didn't notice it as bad as some here because most missions had save points throughout so you maybe played 10 minutes and you had a save.

- more decker missions…that was awesome, nuff said.

All in all, not a bad first game at all. Now, they need to build on it for a sequel and I think, I may be wrong, that they made enough to make one.

There are already big discussions about that and the question is, if you want to have a score system for other sites like metacritic or for your site.

Some of you might know Tom Chick from Quarter to Three and who is a regular guest at 3 moves ahead. He is one strongly arguing for using the whole scale.
Metacritic and most "mainstream" media is using only parts of the scale, the "academic" scale, which is basically using 70% and more for games which run decently and have graphics and sound.

Personally I think the RPGWatch score is much better because it doesn't try to give one game 2% more than another due to some strage calculations. In a scope like that it's mostly personal impressions anyways.

If I had to create a score system I would use a 5 "state" system was well.
Just that I would not call it stars. I think the presentation is of importance to understand a system.
If you do not know the system one star still implicates some value, while you know it's garbage.
But if you used a thumb down, thumb on the side, thumb up and one state in between each it would show a completely different picture and you would instantly know what to think about a game.
For now I only see systems like that at movies. For movies it's more obvious that a lot of it is a matter of taste and they don't try to give a movie 1/100 more than any other movie and instead they say "it's a good one and you'll probably like it if you like the genre".
I am aware that IMDB uses a 0 to 100 system (0.0 to 10.0 which is the same) but I'd call them an exception focused on averages.

About the rate, 3/5 is 3/5, for most people it's just a bit above the average… because it's just above the average, it's enough to not read at all the review after to have quickly check the rate at the end. You can comment as much you want each rate, this won't change this overall feeling that most people will have.

I commented only the rate because it was faster but if the rate is supposed to not reflect the point of view of the reviewer, I'd go in details to explain the rate or the review, it's the same.

Firstly two points I regret that they was unnoticed but I'm not that much surprised:

- Achieve goals in different ways at many occasions…
It's unnoticed. But ok I can admit the developers didn't choose an implementation that highlight it well, you need dig yourself the game to discover it. I regret the reviewer didn't found more time to dig better the game but I agree it can happen, it's still a very wrong point of the review.

- Gameplay density ie very few fillers…
It's just unnoticed. But ok I can admit it's fine for ton of players or there wouldn't be ton of fans of MMO or of large open but very empty worlds. I regret the reviewer is on the "wrong" side but it's hard to reproach him this.

But it's more than that those two points.

- Fights quality…
Frankly I don't understand at all this section of the review.

Firstly there's a complain about the difficulty during a large part of the game. But that trigger the question, too easy? Then why not have rise up the difficulty? Or is really the reviewer found it too easy at very hard difficulty setup? If really the reviewer found too easy the fights during a large part of the game then no wonder he couldn't appreciate them.

Secondly there's a long complain about the lack of a true save system. That long part achieve the fights and bury them in a feeling that they are a crap almost boring.

But also the reviewer is obviously not well documented because he accuses the game to have choose a too streamlined path to target mobiles. But the reality is the game is for now only released on computers and the kickstarter never ever mentioned a mobile release, only Win/Mac and later Linux. Moreover the save problem was clearly commented and the cause quoted, the engine (with a mobile origin and strongly adapted just for the game). Not only the reviewer imagine and invent stuff but also he buried deep the fights with this long section to conclude the fights section.

From my point of view it's even less forgivable because the fights quality is largely over most RPG released since 10 years. Few did better or even quite better but it's very very few. That should be a very good point of the game and the review make it almost awful.

- Story quality…
I quote : "an entertaining tale not a great one". As an ex intensive reader ie I read thousands of novels during teen and young adult age, I cannot deny it's exactly that. But when I put it in the context of RPG, I can only have a large (yellow) smile… How many CRPG reach that quality in that area? Sorry it's not a pale or average point but a strong point of the game. I did notice the highlight of the game dialogs quality but the section about the story destroys all.

I'm not surprised the reviewer ended with a bad rate, the review explains it. And it's about the review I disagree, not on all points, but on many and they are important points.

I insist I don't mean the review job is bad, many points are right, and if one point is showing a lack of documentation, it's hard to reproach it because the game interface could lead to a wrong conclusion. In fact I doubt it will be released soon on mobiles because they have to release the linux version first and the engine is involved. Secondly I doubt they'll be in hurry to break the price.

Originally Posted by Ihaterpg
Lol use unreleased games to argue against SRR, this process stinks a little. Is it the negative hype about the game that make you feel you was right to do such thing?

If you're talking to me, I wasn't talking about them in their unreleased state, but when they will be available (and all portents imply that they will be, at some point). I'm merely pointing out that this seems pretty problematic, more problematic than wether there should be a numerical score or not, at any rate.

Actually I'd argue that it's time to get rid of this point in the guidelines about indie games. Why? Because the border between AAA and Indie projects became very slim, especially when talking about RPGs.
I don't think an indie game deserves a better rating than an AAA RPG just because it is indy. I think it would even be better to include the price instead (which I wouldn't like either though).
Today every indie project using unity and a minimum of knowledge and budget will produce decent graphics. Graphics should only play a role if they are especially bad or good. Same goes for sound/voiceacting. Missing voiceacting can bring a bigger variety of options. If it does this I'd happily play without voice acting.
So…taking these two things away…what exactly is the difference between an indie game and an AAA game anyways?

Hi again. Quite a lively discussion going on here, which I really enjoy. Excuse me for replying only occasionally, I am traveling and have only sporadic access. Still I wanted to reply to a few things.
Regarding replay value, my statement on that did really seem to bug Ihaterpg:
First off, no, if you expect multiple play throughs from your reviewer, than you have to look elsewhere. I simply don't have the time to do that, nor is it my style of playing, to be honest. I think this was transparent already from the review as written, but I concede it’s a good idea for the future to explicitly state the amount of play/replay in the future, so people can take that into account.
I did however rewind several times in my playthrough to try different conversation options (including skill or etiquette options) and decisions, and it was very clear that most resulted just in a few lines of different dialog, a few resulted in a different reward, but in no case could I determine any notable consequences or long-term repercussions – and yes, there are quite a few games that have something to offer in this respect. And yes, many AAA games (except maybe the Wither series) aren’t exactly great on that either, but they often make up for it by other means (open worlds, side quests, e.g.). And I wouldn’t necessarily give many of them 5/5 either…

I also replayed the early missions with the different characters I mentioned earlier, but I found little to make me want to go on, it was exactly the same story. And i took into account the other reviews and comments and impressions I read. Yes you can use different solutions to problems depending on your character (skills, stats, maybe other traits) (I mention this in the review), but it’s always only a very short range decision – as an analogy: you can choose the red door, the blue door or the yellow door – but you will always enter the same room, no matter which door you choose. Maybe there are these instances you cite “There's even some parts where there are up to 4/6 different ways to achieve a goal involving series of different actions”, but to me even when there were different options it all seemed very pre scripted – if you’re a decker, you can deck here, if you are high charisma charm the guard, if you are high strength, threaten him. Pass checkpoint, continue to the left. If you want to provide some concrete examples what I failed to dig out something, please do so, maybe using spoiler tags – but I suspect it comes down less to me not noticing it, but more to you being impressed by things I was not impressed by, as per the above example. Well, in the end, if you found it engaging enough for replaying, good for you, and thanks for chiming in on that, maybe it encourages some other readers to give it a try. I personally was not encouraged to, and my analysis of how the game worked found no reason to recommend doing it or give it good marks for replay value. My duty is to relate my impressions –from a certain point onwards reviews are subjective.

Which brings me to Dusk: “Personally, I don't write my personal review on major site if I don't like a game. I, indeed despise some games but I don't have a problem in other people having their options. I don't understand why some people seem to be eager to close the doors for other people. Opinions are free and I don't mind it at all (otherwise, I shouldn't be browsing) but I don't see a point in score systems.”
Firstly, I did not dislike the game, I say as much in the review. That does not mean I close my eyes to it’s weaknesses, nor that it gets an automatic good score. I score it based on the scoring principles put forth by the site, no more no less. Secondly, as someone else noted: scoring is a good exercise for the reviewer, you have to fess up, and it’s quite agonizing I tell you. It’s also a hook for the review – on a glance you can see if you generally agree or disagree with the reviewer (if you have already played the game). Or if this reviewers opinion is generally the same or different from the other reviews you’ve read. So it serves it’s purpose. As for the commercial effect we cannot and should not worry about that. We are fans of RPGs, and most of us are fans of indie devs. But a review is not an advertisement. My only concern HAS to be to do the best I can to give the reader both objective information about the game (mechanics, lengthe, bugs, etc.) and my honest opinion about my personal experience – the inevitable subjective element of any review. And frankly, RPGwatch remains a small site, all things considered. Considering that our reviews are mostly coming quite late anyway, I don’t think you need to worry that we ruin any game developers even if we (or I) were just unreasonably mean (which I really don’t think I am). I also think text, score and comments form a whole – which is why I really value the discussion – it’s very good that you don’t agree with the review and say so, that improves the overall value of the site for everyone.
Which brings me to Dusks “why now?” – as Myrthos already explained there is no agenda. The review was sent to Myrthos when I had finished playing and writing, and then it appeared when Myrthos had time to set it up after runnung some other stories. That’s all. And that’s how it will be in the future, unless other people here who play more / faster start to write.

Which brings me to one final point that is actually important to me. I find it strange to be addressed by you guys as “the reviewer” I am not an institution or a figure of respect – I’m just GhanBuriGhan, I’m a regular member of this site just as you are. Please address me directly. I write these reviews for two reasons: to give something back to the site that has provided me a lot of free news, entertainment and info over many years now. And second, because I find I enjoy playing the games more when I aim at writing about them. It intensifies the experience. But I am no more expert than the other members here (in fact I think we have members here who are clearly greater experts, but most have not chosen to write so far), and certainly it seems the call to write for RPGwatch is open to anyone who can and will write. So the third reason I write them is simply that noone else has.

Finally on the story

Spoiler

– to me it’s not a great story because it falls prey to tropes and clichés in the end. It starts out great, different and personal. Wry and witty. But in the end you save the damsel’s (trope 1), except the ones that turn into monsters (trope 2), in a dungeon filled with demon goo (haven’t I seen that in DA:O, and countless other games). Oh, in the end of course you really didn’t save anything because the megacorporations own anything, thanks for that, but its still a cliché, in a shadowrun world. Good but not great, I stand by that.

I have many points to answer including that your view of the choices is totally wrong but I'd like first pinpoint a more general point. For you Open World justify this is less good or that is less good. Ok your choice or preferences, but a quote, do A B C isn't different than A C B, then open world thing brings nothing to the replay value by itself.

Now about choices, I haven't played the game since a long time and list examples from memory is difficult. So I'll investigate on that. In fact I don't remember the first fights very well and it depends what you mean exactly by first fight. But I feel it's very few and you could as well have avoid comment in anyway the replay value.

Originally Posted by Gorath
This rule was written when the typical Indie RPG was made by Spiderweb.

Yub, that's why I wrote "today" and tried to point out that times changed

@GhanBuriGhan
I guess I wrote the reviewer because:
1. I forgot your name when writing
2. In the review you don't see the typical forum pic. I tend to associate people on the forum first with the avatar and only second with their name
3. I used it, as you use TS for Thread/Topic Starter or OP (Original Poster)

I did however rewind several times in my playthrough to try different conversation options (including skill or etiquette options) and decisions, and it was very clear that most resulted just in a few lines of different dialog, a few resulted in a different reward, but in no case could I determine any notable consequences or long-term repercussions

Imho that's exactly what is expected from a reviewer and this is what I wanted to express before (@Dusk). I didn't play a Drone Guy before, but with the other dudes in your party and all the drone shafts around you, you didn't need another playthrough to see how that works out.

Originally Posted by Kordanor
…
1. I forgot your name when writing
2. In the review you don't see the typical forum pic. I tend to associate people on the forum first with the avatar and only second with their name
3. I used it, as you use TS for Thread/Topic Starter or OP (Original Poster)
…

Woo it's a lot too much you are obviously trying to hide a lie. Common tell him the rude truth, the point is you can't even read the name so to remember it is just impossible.

Use simple nick names in forum, that's a good trick. I don't know but for example Baru would be more simple to read than… let try remember… GaburNiGan?

Originally Posted by Kordanor
…
Imho that's exactly what is expected from a reviewer and this is what I wanted to express before (@Dusk). I didn't play a Drone Guy before, but with the other dudes in your party and all the drone shafts around you, you didn't need another playthrough to see how that works out…

You can use this arguing for party RPG, that you hire make it more flexible but those you hire don't have custom builds you could use.

I really feel that arguing very weird. But I noticed it's been used multiple time with SRR and I don't remember a single time to have read it with a game like Icewind Dale.

Strangely it's like if players don't realize builds are possible in SRR and many party variation can be used. I suppose there's a reason but really there's an undervaluation of the game possibilities and suddenly players lost all their curiosity of experimenting.

I'm not ready but I pick one of the first quests to list how many ways there was to achieve a goal of the quest and I already listed 10. But nope, it's like players are blind and just see a straight path without any options, ie once more they suddenly lost all their curiosity. For me a player without curiosity to experiment is a very bad RPG player.

Moreover in case of Rigger the main character gets a few options from using a drone and drones of your companions won't work.

Could be because it's not my native language but for me The Reviewer is much more respectful than any of your suggestions, the worst is GBG (now I remind this one!) which looks like if BGB and I guarded pigs together during our youth.

Originally Posted by Ihaterpg
Could be because it's not my native language but for me The Reviewer is much more respectful than any of your suggestions, the worst is GBG (now I remind this one!) which looks like if BGB and I guarded pigs together during our youth.

Well now, what was the line from Cool Hand Luke . . . .

Maybe because English is not your language, you were unable to pick up on the idea that my suggestions were JOKES.

if I were to score the game, I would give it a 75/100. Not as in 'anything under 80 sucks' which is what usually happens in magazine reviews, but more of a 'this game is good but it has flaws' (too short and the save system being the two main problems). Totally worth the price, but it's right now just a weekend distraction (at least until Berlin comes out and modders start publishing the good stuff)